( 1 ) BY the proceedings of the second respondent dated 5-9-2000, the petitioner, an Assistant Manager (under suspension) in the employment of the State bank of India, was imposed the penalty of removal from service after a departmental inquiry. Petitioner preferred a departmental appeal to the first respondent. The appeal was rejected by the order dated 20-10-2001 of the appellate authority. Assailing the primary and appellate orders, the writ petition is filed.

( 2 ) BY the proceedings dated 12-11-1998, the petitioner was placed under suspension, pending inquiry i. e. , on allegations of having committed certain serious irregularities during his tenure as Assistant Manager (Advances) at the Undavalli Branch of the bank. On 13-8-1999, a charge-memo was issued to the petitioner setting out four charges. Briefly, the charges against the petitioner were: (a) that, while officiating as a Branch manager on 5-11-2004, he had sanctioned Agricultural Cash Credit (ACC) limit of Rs. One lakh to a defaulting borrower without following the scales of finance approved by the District Technical Committee; had arrived at the quantum of finance for raising crops for both rabi and kharif; had disbursed the entire amount in one season; and had earlier recommended crop loans on the same lands to the son and grandson of the borrower by deliberately furnishing wrong information in the control form submitted to the controlling Authority; (b) that he had misappropriated the amounts received from borrowers for credit to their accounts and had failed to account for the amounts so received in the branch books; (c) that he had recommended ACC limit of Rs. 12,000/- to a (specified) borrower even though the earlier crop loan sanctioned to him was outstanding in the "branch Protested bills Account" and had also disbursed the crop loan when the borrower paid only a part amount of rs. 8,944/- leaving a debit balance of rs. 4,494/-; and (d) that he failed to follow the scales of finance approved by the District technical Committee and had arrived at the quantum of finance for raising crops for both rabi and kharif and disbursed the entire amount in one season (in respect of 3 other borrowers ).

( 3 ) THE petitioner was charged with failure to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to have violated Rule 50 (4) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules governing his terms of service in the Bank. Enclosed to the charge memo dated 13-8-1999 was a detailed statement of allegations and imputations, on the basis of which the charges were framed.

( 4 ) THE petitioner submitted his explanation on 9-12-1998.

( 5 ) THE inquiring authority, the Chief manager of the Bank, submitted his report on 6-3-2000 to the disciplinary authority finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. By a communication dated 8-3-2000, the disciplinary authority communicated a copy of the inquiry report containing the findings on each of the charges and a copy of the proceedings of the domestic inquiry and called upon the petitioner to submit any representation or submission that he desires to make on the report or the findings. The petitioner responded by a letter dated 25-5-2000 addressed to the disciplinary authority merely stating that the inquiring authority does not appear to have perceived or analyzed the record from the point of view of the petitioner; pleading that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community; that a sympathetic view be taken and he be exonerated of the charges.

( 6 ) THE disciplinary authority cogently and succinctly analyzed the findings of the inquiring authority, the proceedings of the inquiry, the evidence on record and the submissions (so called)/explanation of the petitioner and recorded independent findings of his own in respect of each of the charges and noted his concurrence with the conclusions of the inquiring authority as regards the guilt of the petitioner in respect of each of the charges 1 to 4. This is evident

Click Here to Read the rest of this document